Notes and correspondence: Comments on "A surrogate ensemble study of climate reconstruction methods: Stochasticity and Robustness"

23Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In a recent paper, Christiansen et al. compared climate reconstruction methods using surrogate ensembles from a coupled general circulation model and pseudoproxies. Their results using the regularized expectation maximization method with truncated total least squares (RegEM-TTLS) appear inconsistent with previous studies. Results presented here show that the poor performance of RegEM-TTLS in Christiansen et al. is due to 1) their use of the nonhybrid method compared to the hybrid method; 2) a stagnation tolerance that is too large and does not permit the solution to stabilize, which is compounded in another paper by Christiansen et al. by the introduction of an inappropriate measure of stagnation; and 3) their use of a truncation parameter that is too large. Thus, the poor performance of RegEM-TTLS in both Christiansen et al. papers is due to poor implementation of the method rather than to shortcomings inherent to the method. © 2010 American Meteorological Society.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rutherfo, S. D., Mann, M. E., Ammann, C. M., & Wahl, E. R. (2010). Notes and correspondence: Comments on “A surrogate ensemble study of climate reconstruction methods: Stochasticity and Robustness.” Journal of Climate, 23(10), 2832–2838. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3146.1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free